Paranoia, The Destroyer

Obviously, as one with a severe bent towards freedom, I think it is always advisable to keep a close eye on what our government is doing. Especially when it comes to said government granting itself extraordinary powers over the conduct of our lives, and/or over our liberty, in light of particular opinions we might hold, or because of the people we hang around with. The danger in allowing the government latitude to impinge upon our liberty in such cases should be apparent. However, sometimes people start seeing a red under their bed, or a little yellow man in their head, and act just a wee bit paranoid about actions that the government has proposed.

… legislation quietly making its way through Congress would give the White House power to categorize political opponents as hate groups and even send Americans to detention centers on abandoned military bases.

Rep. Alcee Hastings – the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled – introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.'”

Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs” – none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.

It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp.

(my emphasis)

In support of author Mark Tapscott’s ipse dixit argument that this isn’t paranoia, he points to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. That’s a fair enough point (i.e. it has happened before here), but the analogy between Hastings’ amendment and the WWII internment camps is still pretty weak. For one thing, the internments were not done on the sly, as Tapscott suggests is being done now, and secondly, rounding up a relatively small number of people during WWII, is a lot more plausible than attempting to imprison half the country.

To be fair on the second point, most legislation includes phrases similar to the “meet other appropriate needs” as a means of allowing flexibility in using facilities commissioned by Congress. Under unforeseen circumstances even apart from creating concentration camps for abortion opponents, the six national emergency centers might need to get some use other than housing military personnel or civilians evacuated from a disaster area. That language allows the Pentagon and Homeland Security leeway to adapt for other issues without having to worry that lawyers will descend upon them like locusts for not strictly limiting use to the statutes.

Nevertheless, I decided to delve into the Hastings amendment that Tapscott referred to, and which can be read in its entirety here (pdf). This is the pertinent language that woke some people up feelin’ kinda queer:

(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.

First of all, note the qualifier “violent” in that definition. Just being pro-life or anti-tax would not bring one under the aegis of this provision unless you also advocated violence in support of the cause.

The other part that seems to have been missed by some, is that this entire amendment is aimed at rooting out hate-group supporters from the military:

(1) PROHIBITION.—A person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government, as determined by the Attorney General, may not be recruited, enlisted, or retained in the armed forces.

In other words, the worst thing that can happen as a result of this bill is that someone could be unfairly kept out of the military. I don’t want that any more than I expect anyone else does, but it’s sure a far cry from rounding up Republicans and throwing them in gulags.

That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with the amendment. As many of you probably already know, the military already has several provisions on the books prohibiting associations with extremist hate groups. Moreover, as Rep. Franks noted in arguing against the amendment, when viewed in light of the recent DHS report, allowing unelected and unaccountable officials to determine on their own who is an extremist or not seems like a pretty bad idea:

I take extreme offense that the federal government – through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official – would dare to categorize people who are “dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration” as “right-wing extremists” and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings’ Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged.

The desire to risk one’s life on foreign soil for one’s country may well be considered “extreme.” To spill blood on a foreign battlefield in the name of freedom requires extreme devotion.

This amendment could have been written in a way that is more consistent with current DOD policy, which prohibits military personnel from participating in “organizations that espouse supremacist causes; or attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin…”

So, not only is Hastings’ amendment redundant, it’s also an undesirable (and perhaps unconstitutional) grant of power to the Attorney General. Clearly the amendment as drafted could use some work, and it should be watched and commented upon. However, none of it suggests that Hastings is planning on helping the Obama Administration to unilaterally declare “groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues” hate groups and then have them carted off to Guantanamo-on-the-Mainland.

heck, even Franks didn’t go so far as to suggest that Democrats want to literally wall off their political rivals. Instead, he claimed that the real intentions of the House were not being reflected in the amendment:

The military has many laws and regulations in place to counter racism and the enlistment of racist militants. Recruits must be thoroughly vetted, and must even explain the symbolism behind their tattoos, body markings and writings. I understand that there is concern that the rules and regulations governing vetting of recruits are not being followed as vigilantly as they could be, and this is a legitimate cause for concern. At the same time, this is a call for better enforcement of the laws in place, rather than a sweeping categorization of persons as “extremists,” as we saw in Janet Napolitano’s agency’s report.

I want to state unequivocally that I believe that it is not the intent of this Congress to label pro-lifers, federalism proponents, and pro-immigration enforcement groups and their affiliates as extremists under the bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should make a strong effort to assuage these concerns and make our intentions clear.

(my emphasis)

Is this an example of poor legislative drafting? Sure. Is the Hastings amendment really necessary in light of existing military rules and regulations? Probably not. Is it a good idea to give unaccountable officials the power to label groups of Americans as extremists simply because of some opinions that they might hold? No, no it isn’t. Does this amendment represent an empowerment of the federal government to intern a large swath of conservative America? Don’t be so paranoid.

Calling the government to account for straying outside it’s bounds of power is always a good idea, but being paranoid about it doesn’t help your cause, and may in fact hurt it. You’re blowing it all with paranoia. You may be feelin’ guilty, feelin’ scared, seeing hidden cameras everywhere, but you’ve got to Stop! Hold on. Stay in control.

The point of the bill amendment is to keep extremist nuts out of the military. The military already has such regulations, so this is redundant and unnecessary legislation, but it has nothing to do with rounding anybody up into gulags.

i disagree that worry over this is “paranoid”. has government *ever* designated a power for itself that it didn’t eventually use? yes, they might not have used that power for years or even decades, but eventually….when a convenient ‘crisis’ pops up….. as for franks assuring us that he’d never, no never, EVER use that bill to label anti-abortionist right-wing inbred mouthbreathing couisn-marrying tax protesting heteronormative racists as “terrorists”: once upon a time, a long time ago, IIRC, when you got your social security card, it had this printed on it: “this number **shall never** be used for purposes of identification”. once upon a time, the US dollar used to say “**will pay** to the bearer on demand XX dollars (in gold or silver).” and all the other thousands of examples. and then, of course, they…changed the rules and invalidated those earlier promises. why is having knowledge of past government behavior and projecting those unchanging, absolutely reliable tendencies into the future “paranoia”? why isn’t it “wise use of past experience”? what would you have us do? take them at their word? *trust *them?

Secondly, there is nothing in the amendment or the bill that would give anyone authority to go round up people and throw them into internment camps, which is what Tapscott is alleging.

Could the government do such a thing? Sure, it could try. But it really strains credibility to suggest that Alcee Hastings is inserting secret provisions in Defense Authorization bills in order to label approximately half the country as “extremists” so that they can then be hustled off to military bases where they will be interned. Can you honestly say that, somehow, the Democrats will sneak up on conservatives and detain them because they think abortion is wrong or that taxes are too high? Again, the government could try to do something like that, but it won’t be sneaky, and it won’t come as a surprise. What Tapscott’s suggesting is just flat out paranoid.

It sounds like those people who are “irrational” about The Clown™ and His Clownettes™ coming to take away their guns – and their Constitutional right to own one – are not so irrational after all.

Give the Democrats in Congress a chance to enact “The Safe Gun Act of 2010,” in which they want “only safe guns to be on the street.” Don’t think this will happen? Who thought that they and The Clown™ would spend trillions, sending us into a whirlpool of debt?

True. True. Randy Weaver received a $100,000 settlement while his daughters received $1 million each because they secretly owned the Ruby Ridge Savings and Loan and had financed subprime mortgages to minorities in Idaho.

This legislation might indeed not be what paranoia would make it out to be, but we are still at the beginning of a bad faith presidency, conceived in bad faith, brought into office in bad faith, and acting in bad faith. Nothing good can come from this administration.

Let’s see how friendly it is to basic liberties when its popularity starts to wane and the MSM can no longer pump it up.

Expect at least two preliminary rounds of blaming it on racism before other alternatives come into play. And that return to charging racism could be stage setting.

I think that when the mask comes off that past behavior predicts future behavior, and that what is left of the Constitutional order could well be tested. By what? By Chicago, Alinsky, Acorn, and Trinity United behavior and ideology. It’s a combustible mixture, and at its deep end you might get what could be described as an extra-governmental “riot.” I would define that as deliberately-inspired-by-government intimidation and violence. Note that this whole movement acts first, always, by pointing a finger at its opponents and accusing them of what it intends to do. So accusing opponents of violence, in the DHS report for instance, is not a good sign.

As for Eric Holder, another time, but let me say that I have less confidence in his rationality than I did in Janet Reno’s and then some. I don’t know if the blogger Dr. Sanity has ever taken a close look at Holder, but I wish she would.